[smashthestate]

Is all private property theft, as the communists would dictate? What of intellectual property, or property resulting from your labor? For example, if you write a book, is that not rightly your private property? Do you not have all rights to that book since it exists solely because of your labor? Likewise, if you perform manual labor and create a shoe, is that shoe not rightfully yours, since you labored to make it, and since without your labor it wouldn't exist?

Does an individual not have every right to the property which he has created? May he not choose to do with it exactly what he pleases?

Not all private property is land, communists must realize this.

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his."
– John Locke, 1690

[Red Louisiana II]

Is all private property theft, as the communists would dictate?

No, Property is property, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, it is bourgeois property, in the hands of the proletariat, it, when capitalist mode of economic relations is abolished, so shall the property character of proerty

What of intellectual property, or property resulting from your labor?

The Laborer reaps none of his product, what of the laborer?

For example, if you write a book, is that not rightly your private property?

Can that book produce other books? Do the words create other words? They have no productive character, and thus don't follow the same rules as productive property.

Do you not have all rights to that book since it exists solely because of your labor?

(see above, I hate repeating myself)

Likewise, if you perform manual labor and create a shoe, is that shoe not rightfully yours, since you labored to make it, and since without your labor it wouldn't exist?

In a factory, who creates the shoes - the capitalist, who merely purchases the labor power, or the laborer, who CREATES the shoe?

Does an individual not have every right to the property which he has created? May he not choose to do with it exactly what he pleases?

I find it interesting that you are so distrought(eh, is that spelled right? yikes) at the idea of abolition of porperty - it seems like it's never crossed your mind, never ventured into your thoughts.

Not all private property is land, communists must realize this.

Capitalists do not produce, capitalist-sympathizers must realize this.

[smashthestate]

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again...

Does the laborer not have every right to his product? Can he not choose what he will do with it?

[Edric O]

First of all: So you agree that property over land, at least, is theft? Good. We're making progress.

What of intellectual property, or property resulting from your labor? For example, if you write a book, is that not rightly your private property? Do you not have all rights to that book since it exists solely because of your labor?

What about the labour of the people who made the paper and printed the book? Doesn't that count for anything?

Likewise, if you perform manual labor and create a shoe, is that shoe not rightfully yours, since you labored to make it, and since without your labor it wouldn't exist?

In capitalism, that shoe becomes the property of the owner of the shoe factory in which you work. Isn't exploitation wonderful?

Does an individual not have every right to the property which he has created? May he not choose to do with it exactly what he pleases?

"Created"? When was the last time you created atoms from nothing?

It all comes down to "land", because it all comes down to primary natural resources that you use in the creation of property.

[smashthestate]

It all comes down to "land", because it all comes down to primary natural resources that you use in the creation of property.

Yes, but land by itself is nothing. It takes an individual's labor to create the shoe. It won't just spring out of the ground. And that individual may do with that shoe what he pleases, even sell it to an employer in the form of wages, if he so desires.

If we went by your reasoning, even the clothes on your back is "The People's clothes." That is not bourgeois property now is it? But it still comes from the land, which the people own, does it not?

Is an individuals labor meaningless because he used natural resources to create something? Is labor to be the property of the people as a whole, or should it be respective of who actually did that particular labor?

[Edric O]

That individual usually sells the shoe to an employer in exchange for a wage because he has no choice, not because he wants to.

But getting to the point, there is one problem with your line of logic: Goods are rarely made through the labour of a single individual. Not only do separate individuals create separate parts of a shoe, but they do so by using various tools which were invented by other individuals, who in turn used tools invented by yet another set of individuals, and so on.

Production is a social process. For the creation of an item as simple as a shoe, thousands of people throughout history have contributed (in various ways). It's practically impossible to decide who should own what. The vast majority of goods are the result of collective work - so it makes sense that they should be collective property.

[smashthestate]

Agreed. A lot of products are collectively produced. However, as you agreed, and as John Locke said, each man has a property within himself. He may choose to do with that property WHATEVER he wants, even sell it to an employer in the form of wages, that is his choice. He isn't being force, he isn't being oppressed.

Spare me the commie sap story.

There are millions of people who have come from poor families and with no help from the government, have been able to become rich. They weren't "oppressed" anymore than anyone else.

[Noumenon]

In capitalism, that shoe becomes the property of the owner of the shoe factory in which you work. Isn't exploitation wonderful?

Thats not true. A small part of the shoe belongs to the laborer: the part he worked on. He trades that small part for what its worth in wages. And if its not worth much, well he should have stayed in school and learned to be more productive.

What about the labour of the people who made the paper and printed the book? Doesn't that count for anything?

And they get payed according to the value of their work. It takes a rare person to write a good book, and their skills are in high demand. They get paid according to their very valuable service. I don't know much about the printing industry, but those people get less of the money earned from the sale of the book because their skills are not as valuable as the writer's.

[Monkey Angst]

It is interesting and telling that for the purposes of argument, a useless item was chosen, an item of no value whatsoever on its own. In order for a shoe to have value, it must be coupled with another shoe. Likewise, in order for a laborer to have value, he must work with a team of other laborers and distributors. Likewise, for an individual to have value, he must work within a society. Too much communist/socialist thought is on the red herrings of labor and property. A shoe is not created, ideally, because someone desires to own or sell a shoe, but because, someone, somewhere, has bare feet. That someone would have a problem with the "fruits of their labor" ending up on someone else's feet is beyond me. I would be satisfied that when the time comes, I would also have what I needed. What is the problem with this?

[Red Louisiana II]

The underlying mistake you're making is the idea that the laborer sells his creation for a wage - this is incorrect. The capitalist buys his LABOR POWER(capability to create), this accounts fro the wage being lower than the creation, which creates surplus value.

[Cruxus]

Is all private property theft, as the communists would dictate? What of intellectual property, or property resulting from your labor? For example, if you write a book, is that not rightly your private property? Do you not have all rights to that book since it exists solely because of your labor?

Does an individual not have every right to the property which he has created? May he not choose to do with it exactly what he pleases?

I'm not going to address the "Is all private property theft?" question as that is a moot question outside radical-left politics, but I would like to address the question about intellectual property.

First of all, intellectual property is never the product purely of the producer's own mental efforts. Intellectual property is the result of the development of existing ideas, claimed as property. Even a novel, although the characters may be unique, borrows existing literary themes, situations from history and current events, and so on. The deficiencies of current intellectual property law is evinced by Amazon's "one-click purchase" patent and numerous patents like it. Similarly, copyright law imprisons cultural works that should enter the public domain after a duration of time; the works of the Shakespeares of our time may be held by corporations indefinitely.

In the United States, the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish laws giving the government authority to issue patents and copyrights so long as they served the benefit of society; current U.S. intellectual property laws no longer reflect this. Now, patents and copyrights are, more often than not, used to extract more wealth without contributing anything new to society.

[Cap]

There are millions of people who have come from poor families and with no help from the government, have been able to become rich. They weren't "oppressed" anymore than anyone else.

Yes, they became rich by using the system to oppress and exploit others. There are no rich men in heaven.

And they get payed according to the value of their work.

Most people don't get paid for the value of their work, as Red Louisiana was just saying. If they did, then all those kids in the Nike factories and the ceo and board etc and Tiger Woods would all split the profits accordingly. But no, the kids who make the actually shoes get paid like 60 cents a week...


Cap

[Enigmatic]

And if its not worth much, well he should have stayed in school and learned to be more productive.

this could be difficult in economies where there are few prospects for school leavers and/or no free education